(TEN)Patricia Lyons and the Friend of the Court

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY)
AND FRIEND OF THE COURT
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843
JUDGE’S COPY
FRIEND OF THE COURT
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY HON. JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA
HOWELL, MICHIGAN 48843 Case no. 96-23807-DM
734-250-2734

PATRICIA A. LYONS
1916 NORVELL ROAD
GRASS LAKE, MICHIGAN
Plaintiff
V.

GEORGE EDWARD LYONS
P.O. BOX 226
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169
734-675-1679 Defendant
___________________________________/

PROOF OF SERVICE

Defendant George Edward Lyons on day of Tuesday, August 07, 2007has used the U. S. Postal service at Pinckney Post office and mail and served a copy of Defendant Objection for referee report and recommendation of Referee Robert J. Hotchkiss. For defendant’s proposed Motion of Parenting time and criminal actions caused by the Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons and PROOF OF SERVICE in the action upon: Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons. Delivery address 1916 Norvell Road, Grass Lake, Michigan

I DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE, AND BELIEF.



_________________________________,
GEORGE EDWARD LYONS
P.O. BOX 226
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169
734-675-1679
Tuesday, August 07, 2007



STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY)
AND FRIEND OF THE COURT
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843

FRIEND OF THE COURT
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY HON. JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA
HOWELL, MICHIGAN 48843 Case no.96-23807-DM
734-250-2734

PATRICIA A. LYONS
1916 NORVELL ROAD
GRASS LAKE, MICHIGAN
PlaintiffV.

GEORGE EDWARD LYONS
P.O. BOX 226
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169
734-675-1679 Defendant
___________________________________/



DEFENDANTOBJECTIONSFORREFEREEREPORT ANDRECOMMENDATIONOFREFEREE ROBERT J. HOTCHKISS


NOW COMES THE DEFENDANT George Edward Lyons.

Defendant now argues that the referee report and recommendation of the referee erred in entering the report of referee recommendation. The Defendant feels that the referee is protecting the Plaintiff and other people from criminal actions that the Defendant wants to expose. The defendant is now requesting a de novo hearing pursuant to MCL 552.507 (5).

"To expedite the resolution of a child visitation and Plaintiff criminal actions dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue." MCL 722.28.

The trial court’s if the findings are against the great weight of the evidence and if the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction. Mogel v Scriver, 241 Mich App 192, 196; 614 NW2d 696 (2000). The abuse of the Plaintiff is found only in extreme cases in which the result is so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will, a defiance of judgment, or the exercise of passion or bias. Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871, 879,880; 526 NW2d 889 (1994). MCL 552.507 (5) provides, in relevant part: (5)

The court shall hold a de novo hearing on any matter that has been the subject of a referee hearing, upon the written request of either party or upon motion of the court. The Defendant is now requesting to hearing on all matters that has been the subject of the referee hearing. Both visitation and criminal actions of the Plaintiff.

The Defendant had met the time and objections was made within 21 days after the recommendation of the referee is made available to that party under subsection.
. .
Thus, if either party objects to the referee’s report or recommendation, the trial court must hold a de novo hearing. Harvey v Harvey, ___ Mich App ___ ; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No 244950, issued June 24, 2003), citing MCR 3.215(E)(3)(b); Cochrane v Brown, 234 Mich App 129, 133-134; 592 NW2d 123 (1999).2This hearing must be a hearing de novo, not merely a de novo review. Cochrane, supra at 132, citing Mann v Mann, 190 Mich App 526, 529; 476 NW2d 439 1

Some of the allegations against plaintiff were that she was sporadically, she failed to maintain the marital house from a fraudulent foreclosure that the Plaintiff participated in. with Karl and Marian Kopp of which is a criminal act.

o Plaintiff committed a fraudulent domestic charge against Defendant by making a false police report. Supported by Kathy Fett who was investing $ 137,000.00 to pay off Karl and Marian Kopp also who committed a Fraudulent forfeiture against the Defendant.

o Plaintiff filed fraudulent statement in the Divorce papers of the summons and complaint to remove Defendant from marital home wrongly supported by Plaintiff divorce attorney Brian Lavan, also employer of referee Gerald Edit.

o Employees of the Livingston County Court system and others had received bribery. The Legal definition of Bribery is:
Bribery n. the crime of giving or taking money or some other valuable item in order to influence a public official (any governmental employee) in the performance of his/her duties. Bribery includes paying to get government contracts (cutting the roads commissioner in for a secret percentage of the profit), giving a bottle of liquor to a building inspector to ignore a violation or grant a permit, or selling stock to a Congressman at a cut-rate price. Example: Governor (later Vice President) Spiro T. Agnew received five cents from the concessionaire for each pack of cigarettes sold in the Maryland capitol building.

The definition has been expanded to include bribes given to corporate officials to obtain contracts or other advantages which are against company policy.

o Bribery was taken by Livingston County Court employee’s by doing bribery, they committed judicial misconduct, tortuous interference, and civil conspiracy, and more.

o Employees of the Livingston County Court system and other have committed tortuous interference. Legal definition of tortuous interference.

Tortuous interference is the unlawful interference into one’s contractual or business affairs. For example, someone who uses the web to defame an individual’s business and contacts their customers (or prospective customers) may be violating this law. A special case of tortuous interference called “Tortuous Interference with Prospective Advantage” is available in some states to punish those who seek to damage one’s ability to find and retain new customers.

o Employees of the Livingston County Court system and other have committed civil conspiracy. Legal definition of Civil Conspiracy.

CIVIL CONSPIRACY - 'The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are the formation and operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an act or acts done in furtherance of the common design. . . . In such an action the major significance of the conspiracy lies in the fact that it renders each participant in the wrongful act responsible as a joint tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrong, irrespective of whether or not he was a direct actor and regardless of the degree of his activity.'' (Doctors' Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 44, citing Mox Incorporated v. Woods (1927) 202 Cal. 675, 677-78.)' (Id. at 511.)

'Conspiracy is not a cause of action, but a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration. By participation in a civil conspiracy, a coconspirator effectively adopts as his or her own the torts of other coconspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy. In this way, a coconspirator incurs tort liability co-equal with the immediate tortfeasors. Standing alone, a conspiracy does no harm and engenders no tort liability. It must be activated by the commission of an actual tort. ''A civil conspiracy, however atrocious, does not per se give rise to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has been committed resulting in damage.'' 'A bare agreement among two or more persons to harm a third person cannot injure the latter unless and until acts are actually performed pursuant to the agreement. Therefore, it is the acts done and not the conspiracy to do them which should be regarded as the essence of the civil action.' [para.s] By its nature, tort liability arising from conspiracy presupposes that the coconspirator is legally capable of committing the tort, i.e., that he or she owes a duty to plaintiff recognized by law and is potentially subject to liability for breach of that duty.' (Allied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., supra, 7 Cal.4th at 510-11.)

Finally, Defendant alleges that plaintiff and referee Gerald Edit and Dr. Richard Zipper along with Monica Coupland, court appointed attorney for the Defendant and Plaintiff children. These people acted in fabricated false psychological problems against the Defendant to stop the Defendant in having a fair and un-bias trial.
2

MCR 3.215(E) (3) (b), sets forth the requirements for a Defendant to obtain a judicial hearing on any matter that has been the subject of a referee hearing. (1991).

This is supported by the Defendant complaint filed with the Friend of the court. This means that the trial court is required to conduct a hearing as if no friend of the court hearing had been conducted previously, and the court must arrive at an independent conclusion. Marshall v Beal, 158 Mich App 582, 591; 405 NW2d 101 (1986).3

At the hearing before the referee, after both parties made their testimonies and objections, the recommendation stated the following:

The point I am making here, this is a very important matter to the Friend of the Court. These matters are not taken lightly when this is done. The reasons why this matter was brought before the Court is that the referee, after hearing the evidence, made certain recommendations.

After reading what was submitted to this Court referee report, and based on that recommendation and the fact that if this Court may agree that there are too many allegations by the Defendant involved in the visitation of the child and criminal acts of the Plaintiff. It causes complications, leads to unnecessary litigation, under the circumstances, and in light of the referee report minimal analysis, The Defendant will find that the trial court failed to conduct a proper de novo hearing.

The statutorily authorized report and recommendation of the referee are not admissible as evidence at a visitation or the referee failed at his job. Or Custoy hearing unless both parties agree to admit the evidence. Duperon v Duperon, 175 Mich App 77, 79; 437 NW2d 318 (1989). However, the report may be used as an aid to understanding the issues to be resolved that shows the contuious biasness of the Friend of the court and the criminal action against the Defendant. Id.; Harvey, supra.

The, Defendant is objecting to the referee’s report and recommendation and now request a de novo hearing before the State of Michigan administration office for a De nova hearing. And, if the hearing, the trial court expressly stated that it based its decision on the referee’s recommendation. At most, the trial court must conduct a de novo review, and not a de novo hearing. MCL 552.507. (5) Expressly provides for a de novo hearing, and, under MCL 552.507. (5), Defendant is entitled to “a hearing as if no friend of the court hearing had been conducted previously and [the circuit court must] arrive at an independent 3 note that per MCL 552.507. (5)

WRITTEN REQUEST

The Defendant is now placing in writing a request in require in writing by this document. Defendant did at Three (3) different times filed an actual written request for a de novo hearing. And this request be granted, It is clear from the transcripts that Defendant continuously requested an evidentiary hearing throughout the proceedings; Defendant have been able to verify by the record that, before the referee’s recommendation, Defendant filed a written motion which was filed properly for a de novo hearing and Emergency Disqualification of Chief Judge Susan Reck. Chief Judge Susan Reck failed to follow the Michigan Court Rules 2.003. Stating that MCR.2.003 (b).

ALTERNATIVE, IF THIS MOTION IS DENIED, Defendant respectfully demands;

(b) In a single-judge court, or if the challenged judge is the chief judge, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the state court administrator for assignment to another judge, who shall decide the motion de novo.

On three (3) different Emergency Motions for Disqualification for Biasness of Judge Susan Reck the Judge fail or refused to this case to the state of Michigan administrator for assignment to another judge, who shall decide the motion for a de novo hearing. The request is to re-open this motion and follow the Michigan Court rules 2.003


The record is clear that the friend of the court referee held a hearing and made his recommendation, the Defendant will want to go before the trial court stating his objections to the referee’s recommendation. Defendant acknowledged in his brief that Defendant will seek review of the referee’s findings, but rather than argue the merits of a hearing pursuant to MCL 552.507 (5), defendant argues that he will be entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to MCR 3.210(C)(7). Defendant raised this issue regarding MCL 552.507 (5) in Defendant brief, the Plaintiff will have time to respond to that argument. Because there has been arguments made that the requirements for requesting a de novo hearing are met, I raise the issue on my own constitution rights as the Defendant.

conclusion.” Marshall, supra at 591. Accordingly, Defendant finds that the trial court’s failure to follow the Michigan Court rules 2.003 on Three (3) different emergency motions for Disqualification of Judge Susan Reck for a hearing de novo in this case was clear error requiring vacation of the court’s order.

The defendant primarily argues that the trial court properly would conduct an evidentiary hearing because under MCR 3.210(C) (7), an evidentiary hearing is required because there was a “contested factual issue to resolve in order to make an informed decision by the Plaintiff.” MCR 3.210(C) (7), provides: (7)

In deciding whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary with regard to a post judgment motion to change visitation and criminal charges against the Plaintiff which cause injustice against the Defendant, the court must determine, by requiring an offer of proof or otherwise, whether there are contested factual issues that must be resolved in order for the court to make an informed decision on the motion. The trial court, however, determine that an evidentiary hearing is necessary under MCR 3.210(C) (7). Rather, the trial court conducted a hearing, but may not improperly rely on the referee’s recommendation in arriving at its decision. Further, the trial court should not state or imply that it relied on MCR 3.210(C) (7) to dispose of the matter.

Therefore, because there may be no indication that the trial court relied on MCR 3.210(C) (7) in arriving at its decision, defendant’s arguments are in place. Defendant will not vacate the order of the trial court and remand this case for a hearing de novo of which Defendant demands that this case be sent to the State of Michigan administration office for a De Novo hearing. In light of Defendant disposition of this issue, Defendant need not address plaintiff’s remaining issues on concerning whether the trial court failed to make findings of fact relative to the best interests of the child. On remand, after a de novo hearing, the trial court must state its independent conclusions, including its findings with regard to the best interests of the child and the criminal acts of the Plaintiff. Defendant do note, Defendant also asserts that the trial court and the referee should be disqualified from the case because they have previously reached prejudicial conclusions through referee Gerald Edit without having heard testimony from the Defendant and refusing to act. Defendant position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize a basis for his claim. Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich 232, 243; 577 NW2d 100 (1998).

Here, Defendants “presented a proper relief [request for relief] with citation and authority.” Id. Accordingly, this issue has been properly presented, and referee has not addressed it. Vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Friend of the court can not retain jurisdiction. And must send this case to the State of Michigan Administration for a De nova hearing, Transferring this case to another Court outside the County of Livingston.

Again Chief Judge Susan Reck on three (3) emergency motion of disqualification for biasness from the Defendant and per the Michigan Court Rule Chief Judge Susan Reck failed to follow the Michigan Court rules 2.003 and refused to send this case to the State of Michigan Administration office for a De nova hearing.

To recap Defendants criminal allegations against Plaintiff and others

Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons caused the following illegal and criminal actions against Defendant George Edward Lyons.

Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons actions falls under tortuous interference, civil conspiracy, embezzlement, Plaintiff making false police reports, And Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons making fraudulent statements that Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons was the owner of 5640 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan to embezzle monies. Property owned by Defendant George Lyons and his company.

PLAINTIFF CAUSED LOSE OF DEFENDANT’S OFFICES
AND COMPLETE LOSE OF INCOME FOR DEFENDANT NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.A.

First in 1989 Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons without notice to the Defendant George Edward Lyons went to the one of the offices of Lyons & Associates, Inc. at 2800 South State Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan contacted the office manager and 8 other agents of Lyons & Associates, Inc. that the office is closing.

This was a major downfall of Lyons & Associates, Inc. Company. 6 agents will testify that Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons this undermining of Lyons & Associates, Inc. causing the company to close the Ann Arbor office and lost of 8 agents. These illegal actions are the beginning of a series of misconduct of Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons part against the Defendant George Lyons and his companies.

B. Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons filed a fraudulent Domestic Abuse police report. This was done by the plaintiff to illegally remove Defendant from the marital home 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. This caused the Defendant to be wrongfully charged with a false police report which caused Defendant George Lyons to serve 2 years probation. Evidence for this wrong doing was uncovered in 2005.


PLAINTIFF AND OTHERS HIDE EVIDENCE FROM DEFENDANT.

C. Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons obstructed the Defendant George Lyons by destroying evidence of the Defendant. This evidence was placed into a dumpster in 2004 and recovered in 2004.


PLAINTIFF EMBEZZLES MONIES FROM DEFENDANT AND CAUSING A LOST OF $ 160,000.00 FOR DEFENDANT.

D. Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons embezzled monies from Defendant George Edward Lyons Company’s property located at 5640 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan. Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons stated under oath she was the owner of 5640 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan, to acquire illegal funds from the Defendant and his company.

E. Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons filed a fraudulent statement to the Friend of the Court referee Gerald Edit.

PLAINTIFF AND FRIEND USES DAUGHTER TO MAKE FRAUDULENT STATEMENT TO FRIEND OF THE COURT AGAINST DEFENDANT.

Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons wrote a fraudulent letter that the Defendant George Edward Lyons personally stated to there daughters (Jeannine and Justina Lyons that “Defendant George Lyons stated that there was someone out to Kill the Daughters and cut there fingers off with a carpenter knife”. The evidence is proven on audio tapes.

This statement was wrongfully made by Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons and her friend Dale Fisher to Defendant and Plaintiff daughters Jeannine Lyons and Justina Lyons.

This wrongful statement made by the plaintiff who caused the Defendant to do supervised visitations with his daughters, and attend wrongfully mental review before Dr. Richard Zipper.

The illegal actions of the Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons and her wrongful indoctrination or programming of there children Jeannine Lyons and Justina Lyons.

Causing Defendant in not having proper parenting time with his children. For the full year of 2006. And since 1998.

PLAINTIFF FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS CAUSED LOST OF PARENTING TIME OF THE DEFENDANT WITH HIS CHILDREN, AND LOST OF INCOME FOR THE DEFENDANT NOW AND INTO THE FUTURE.

Defendant has only two visitations of his daughters. Which consisted of Defendant first visit 1 hour and his second visit was 2 ½ hours which took place two weeks after Christmas.

The above illegal and criminal actions over the years of the Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons caused lost of money for the Defendant George Edward Lyons for legal representation.

These illegal actions of the Plaintiff over the years caused the Defendant George Edward Lyons to face fraudulent N.S.F. charges, which caused the Defendant George Edward Lyons to wrongfully be charged and serve 5 years probation.

And caused the Defendant George Lyons the lost of his real estate broker license and his residential builder’s license of 25 + years. Because of the illegal and criminal actions of the Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons. During the 25+ years of the above Defendant George Lyons or his companies had no violations or lawsuits filed against him or his companies.

These wrongful actions over the years which caused Defendant George Lyons in having no money to pay for an attorney, housing, and child support.

This then caused the Defendant George Lyons to search for a minim wage jobs.

Now the Plaintiff George Lyons having to expose his wrongful felony charges on all workers application, Defendant George Lyons could not acquire a job.

In placing the Defendant in an indigent possession. And being homeless and having to live in a car for 4 years and placing Defendant in arrears of child support.

The following loses Defendant George Lyons caused by the illegal and criminal actions of Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons.

1 Defendant lost his rights as a father to his daughters Jeannine
Ann Lyons and Justina Marie Parker Lyons. Because Plaintiff
Patricia Ann Lyons wrongful interference actions.

And Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons wrongful indoctrination and programming of the Defendant and Plaintiff children against the Defendant George Edward Lyons.

And Plaintiff illegal interference which stops the Defendant from giving proper payments for child support.

2) Defendant George Lyons loses of Martial home 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan 48169. Because Defendant Patricia Ann Lyons wrongful interference and criminal actions of making a false police report.

3) Defendant George Lyons loses of lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Michigan. Because Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons wrongful criminal actions.

Important Issue with Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons and her attorney causing a criminal action against Defendant George Lyons.

4) Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons wrongful actions of taking Defendants Company warranty deed which was submitted to Plaintiff attorney on lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, which was granted from Kenneth and Shirley Morgan and granted to Lyons and Associates, Inc. and Karl and Marian Kopp.

5) And stated to grantor Kenneth and Shirley Morgan that Plaintiff of Defendant lost said warranty deed, which was criminally action on Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons part.

6) This action of the Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons illegally removed Karl and Marian Kopp interest on Lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Michigan. This was a criminal action on Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons part to acquire wrongful and illegal clear title on lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Michigan.

7) The criminal actions of Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons caused Defendant George Lyons the lost of $160,000.00 of builders profit.

8) Plaintiff’s Patricia Ann Lyons wrongful interference and embezzlement of funds from 5640 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan. Because of Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons criminal actions and fraudulent statement to the Livingston County Court system under where Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons was under oath.

Issues on Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons interference.

9) In other criminal interference of Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons caused Defendant George Lyons loses of $ 387,000.00 owed to Defendant George Lyons from past clients cause by Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons.


10) The criminal interference of Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons caused Defendant George Edward Lyons to wrongfully be charged and serves 2 years probation caused by Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons making fraudulent police report for Domestic Abuse charges.

This was caused by Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons and her friend’s criminal actions and in making false statements in filing a fraudulent police report to the Pinckney Police. This evidence was re-discovered in 2005.

11) The illegal interference of the Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons the Defendant George Lyons had to serve 5 years probation for fraudulent N.S.F. charges because of Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons interference.

12) And Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons wrongful actions against George Edward Lyons. Causing the Defendant George Lyons to indigent and hopelessness of acquiring employment.

13) In 2006 Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons a lawsuit was started by the Defendant George Edward Lyons against Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons this lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice by Honorable Judge Reader. The Plaintiff stated that she never received the Summons and Complaint.


Chief of State police Sharon Donnelly retired will testify in
Court that Mrs. Donnelly personally hands delivers the summons and complaint to Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons, but Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons refused to sign the receivership of the Summons and complaint. This case will be re-opened in the near future.

14) This case or allegation made by the Defendant George Edward Lyons falls under tortuous interference, civil conspiracy, embezzlement, perjury, filing false police reports etc, done by the Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons and others.

RELIEF

The Defendant George Edward Lyons hopes and prays Review all Three (3) Emergency motions for Disqualification of Chief Judge Susan Reck and remove this case from the Livingston County court system and send this Case no. 96-23807-DM to the State of Michigan administration office for a De nova hearing.

Defendant wish that this Court would have proceed in the below actions, but it did not happen

That this Honorable court grant a review in Defendants truthful allegations against the Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons and others and finds Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons for her wrongful interferences and criminal actions of the Plaintiff and others against the Defendant George Edward Lyons.

And grant Defendant George Edward Lyons proper Parental Time for daughter Justina Marie Parker Lyons who turned 16 on February 16th 2007, and daughter Jeannie Ann Lyons who is not under this honorable court jurisdiction who turned 21 on April 5th 2007.

This injustice and criminal acts by the Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lyons and others against the Defendant George Edward Lyons has been on going on since 1989.

Respectfully submitted




_________________________________
Defendant George Edward Lyons
And father of Jeannine
And Justina Lyons
P.O. Box 226
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-954-4040
Tuesday, August 07, 2007